HD 5325 
.M63 
1920 
A73 
Copy 1 



x^EPORT, FINDINGS, AND AWARD 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES 
ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION 

ACCEPTED BY THE PRESIDENT 

FROM 

W. 0. THOMPSON, Chairman 
W. L. CONNELL, Commissioner 



1920 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1920 



REPORT, FINDINGS, AND AWARD 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES 
ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION 

ACCEPTED BY THE PRESIDENT 

FROM 

W. 0. THOMPSON, Chairman 
W. L. CONNELL, Commissioner 



1920 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1920 



6 



^ 



$> 






n. of D. 

SEP 4 |929 






CONTENTS. 



Page 

Report, findings, and award accepted by the President 5 

Authority of the commission. . 5 

Organization 7 

History of the controversy 7 

Joint conference of operators and mine workers, 1920 9 

Work of the commission 16 

Demands of the mine workers 18 

Rulings of the commission concerning its jurisdiction 19 

Limitations under which the commission worked 21 

The Anthracite Coal Strike Commission of 1902 22 

The award 22 

Minority report 35 

3 



UNITED STATES ANTHRACITE COAL 
COMMISSION. 



Washington, D. C. August, 1920, 
The President, 

The White House. 
My Dear Mr. President: The undersigned, members of a com- 
mission to hear and decide the questions in dispute between the 
anthracite coal operators and miners, respectfully submit to you the 
following report, findings, and award : 

AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION. 

The authority of the commission to hear and decide the questions 
in dispute between anthracite coal operators and anthracite mine 
workers is derived from the following proclamation of the President 
of the United States and acceptances by anthracite operators and 
miners : 

appointment of commission to arbiteate wage differences between the 
anthracite coal operators and miners. 

By the President of the United States of America. 

A PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas the wage scale of the anthracite coal operators and miners expired 
on March 31, 1920 ; and 

Whereas the operators' and miners' wage scale committee has been in confer- 
ence since early in March in an effort to negotiate a new wage scale; and 

Whereas the committee agreed at the beginning of its session that any agree- 
ment finally arrived at would become retroactive to the first of April, 1920 ; and 

Whereas I addressed a communication to the scale committee on May 21, 
1920, when a disagreement was imminent, in which I said that if the scale 
committee was unable to reach an agreement I would " insist that the matters 
in dispute be submitted to the determination of a commission to be appointed 
by me, the award of the commission to be retroactive to the first of April in 
accordance with the arrangement you have already entered into, and that work 
be continued at the mines pending the decision of the commission. I shall 
hold myself in readiness to appoint a commission similarly constituted to the 
one I recently appointed in connection with the bituminous coal mining industry 
as soon as I learn that both sides have signified their willingness to continue at 
work and abide by its decisions " ; and 

W T hereas I have been advised that both sides have signified their willingness 
to accept and abide by the award of a commission thus constituted ; and 

Whereas the scale committee has further agreed as follows : 

" (1) The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or supple- 

5 



6 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

mental thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the Board of Concilia- 
tion, will be ratified and continued, excepting in so far as they may be changed 
by the award of the commission. 

"(2) When the award of the commission is made it will be written into an 
agreement between the anthracite operators and miners in such maimer as 
the commission may determine. 

"(3) It is understood that neither operators nor miners are in any manner 
bound by any tentative suggestions that have been made during the period of 
their negotiations and that either side shall use its own discretion in the 
presentation of its case in connection with matters at issue." 

Now, therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, hereby 
appoint William O. Thompson, of Columbus, Ohio : Xeal J. Ferry, of McAdoo, 
Pennsylvania ; and William L. Conrell, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a commission 
to hear and decide the questions in dispute between the anthracite coal operators 
and miners. Its report will be made within sixty days, if possible, will be retro- 
active to April 1, 1920, and will be made the basis of a new wage agreement 
between the anthracite operators and miners in such manner as the commission 
may determine. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of 
the United States to be affixed. 

Done in the District of Columbia this 3d day of June, in the year of our 
Lord, nineteen hundred and twenty, and of the Independence of the United 
States the one hundred and forty-fourth. 

By the President : 

Woodrow Wilson. 
Bainbridge Colby, 

Secretary of State. 

acceptance by anthracite operators. 

June 1. 1920. 
Hon. W. B. Wilson, 

Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : We, the undersigned operators representing the negotiating com- 
mittee of the anthracite operators, have received through you a communication 
from the President making an offer to appoint a commission to decide the ques- 
tions in dispute between us and the anthracite mine workers. 

We agree, on behalf of the anthracite operators, to the offer of the President 
to appoint such commission, and further agree to abide by its award. 
Respectfully, yours, 

W. L. Con nell. 
C. F. HrBER. 
W. J. Richards. 
S. D. Warriner. 

ACCEPTANCE BY ANTHRACITE MINE WORKERS. 

Wilkes-Barre, Pa., May 27. 1920. 
To the officers and delegates of the Tri-District Convention of United Mine 

Workers of America assembled here: 

Brothers : Your full scale committee submits the following as the facts 
which compel this convention to accept the proposal of the President of the 
United States for the appointment of a commission to decide all matters at 
issue. 

This convention, has analyzed very carefully the various clauses in the 
proposition submitted through Secretary of Labor Wilson, and we have ar- 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. / 

rived at the unanimous conclusion that it can not be accepted, and we have 
therefore rejected the same. The rejected proposition was objectionable in 
many features and on its face would give a reduction to many classes of men 
in the anthracite region, and through the application of arbitrary factors in 
the computation of the small increases would cause injustice to be done to a 
great body of men and would result in industrial unrest and chaos in the 
region. 

This convention realizes that through industrial legislation, such as the 
court's interpretations of the Lever Act, the abuse of the writ of injunction 
with the tieing up of union funds and other repressive measures, makes it 
almost humanly impossible to wage a successful battle. 

This convention further realizes that the only honorable way open to adjust 
the matters at issue is to accept the proposal offered by the President of the 
United States for the appointment of a commission. 

This convention further states that through the aforementioned circum- 
stances and in the interests of public welfare, we are forced to accept the only 
alternative, namely, the commission : Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we accept the offer of the President of the United States 
for the appointment of a commission as contained in his letter addressed to 
the operators' and mine workers' scale committee, under date of May 21, 1920, 
and that work be continued under the retroactive understanding agreed to be- 
tween operators and miners and reiterated by the President, which will protect 
the mine workers in wage increases as from April 1. 

Thomas Kennedy, President. 
John M. Mack, Secretary. 

ORGANIZATION. 

The members of the commission, Dr. W. O. Thompson, Hon. W. L. 
Connell, and Mr. Neal J. Ferry, met in Washington, D. C, upon 
Monday, the 21st day of June, 1920, and created the following execu- 
tive staff. 

Executive secretary. — James A. Gorman. 

Technical advisers. — Prof. M. B. Hammond, Percy Tetlow, John 
T. Dempsey, Thomas Kennedy, C. J. Golden, and Michael Hart- 
neady. 

Disbursing officer. — E. K. Ellsworth. 

Recorder. — Mrs. Mary Burke East. 

Stenographer. — Hilda M. Weiss. 

The commission gave notice to anthracite operators and miners 
that the commission would meet in the city of Scranton, Pa., upon 
Thursday, the 24th day of June, 1920, to hear testimony upon the 
matters in dispute between the parties. 

HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

Since 1903 the contractual relations between anthracite operators 
and miners, in so far as concern wages and conditions of employment, 
have been governed by the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and the agreements subsequent thereto. 



8 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

On March 18, 1903, the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission ap- 
pointed by the President of the United States at the request of both 
operators and miners, to inquire into, consider and pass upon the 
questions in controversy in connection with the strike in the anthra- 
cite region from May to November, 1902, submitted to the President 
a report containing 11 awards providing for certain increases in 
wages and conditions of employment in the anthracite mining in- 
dustry for a three-year period ending March 31, 1906. 

Upon the 7th day of May, 1906, the representatives of the anthra- 
cite operators and^ mine workers executed an agreement continuing 
the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission for a further 
period of three years. 

By agreement dated April 29, 1909, the award of the commission, 
with certain modifications, was continued for a further three-year 
period ending March 31, 1912. 

On May 20, 1912, an agreement was reached by the representatives 
' of the anthracite operators and mine workers providing for certain 
increases in wages to the employees in the anthracite industry and 
making certain modifications in working conditions. This agree- 
ment continued the award of the commission and subsequent agree- 
ments, with the modifications provided therein for a period of four 
years, ending March 31, 1916. 

Upon May 5, 1916, an agreement was executed by the representa- 
tives of anthracite operators and mine workers providing increases in 
wages, modifications of certain conditions of employment and the 
continuation of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission 
and subsequent agreements excepting as the same were modified by 
said agreement for a period of four years ending March 31, 1920. 

During the life of this agreement due to conditions brought about 
by the war it was deemed advisable by the representatives of the 
operators and mine workers to increase the wage compensation of 
the mine workers. Acting in conjunction with the United States 
Fuel Administration, supplementary agreements increasing the wage 
compensation of the mine workers, but in other respects maintain- 
ing the terms and conditions of the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
were executed April 25, 1917, November 17, 1917, and November 
15, 1918. The increases provided in the supplementary agreement 
of November 15, 1918, were in lieu of the increases provided in the 
two preceding supplementary agreements. 

At a tri-district convention of districts 1. 7. and 9, of the United 
Mine Workers of America, held August 19 to 23. 1919, certain de- 
mands for increases in wage rates and changes in conditions of em- 
ployment were adopted. These demands were presented to the op- 
erators at a meeting of a joint conference of anthracite operators 
and mine workers held in New York City, March 9. 1920. The de- 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. V 

mands of the mine workers were referred by the joint conference to a 
subscale committee of four operators and four mine workers to con- 
sider and report back to the joint conference a definite recommenda- 
tion on all the demands that were presented. 

The subscale committee met in New York from March 11, 1920, to 
April 29. 1920, at which time, having been unable to reach an agree- 
ment upon the matters before it, a request was received from the 
Secretary of Labor to meet with him at Washington. . 

In compliance with the request of the Secretary of Labor the 
subscale committee met in Washington May 1, 1920, to May 20, 1920, 
where, with the assistance of the Secretary of Labor, the subscale 
committee continued its efforts to reach an agreement. 

Upon failure to reach an agreement, on May 20, 1920, the subscale 
committee received a letter from the President of the United States 
offering to appoint a commission to hear and decide the matters in 
dispute between anthracite operators and miners. This request of 
the President was submitted to a tri-district convention of districts 
1, 7, and 9 of the United Mine Workers of America held upon May 
27, 1920. This convention accepted the offer of the President to 
appoint a commission. The operators' representatives on the 1st 
day of June, 1920, likewise accepted the offer of the President to ap- 
point a commission. 

JOINT CONFERENCE OF ANTHRACITE OPERATORS AND MINE 

WORKERS, 1920. 

The reference of the questions in dispute to the present commission 
to hear and decide was the result of the failure of the joint conference 
of anthracite operators and mine workers to reach an agreement 
upon the demands of the anthracite mine workers presented to the 
anthracite operators March 9, 1920. These demands were the de- 
mands as adopted by the tri-district convention of districts 1, 7, and 
9, United Mine Workers of America, held in Wilkes Barre in August, 
1919. 

The mine workers' demands as originally presented read as fol- 
lows, to wit : 

Demands of the anthracite miners as adopted by the delegates to the tri-dis- 
trict convention held in Wilkes Barre, Pa., August 19th to August 23d, 1919. 

(1) We demand that the next contract be for a period not exceeding two (2) 
years and that the making of individual agreements and contracts in the mining 
of coal shall be prohibited. 

(2) We demand that the contract wage scales be increased sixty per cent 
(60%) and that the increases secured in the supplemental agreements of 1917 
and 1918 shall be included in the wage scale as the basis upon which the sixty 
per cent (60%) shall be added, and that all clay men be granted an increase of 
two dollars ($2.00) per day. 

8336—20 2 



10 ANTHKACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

(3) We demand that a uniform wage scale be established so that the vari- 
ous occupations of like character at the several collieries shall command the 
same wage and that shovel crews operating for coal companies shall be paid not 
less than the rates paid by contractors to shovel men. 

(4) We demand that a workday of not more than six (6) hours, from bank 
to bank, be established for all classes of outside and inside day labor, and monthly 
men coming under this agreement, five days per week, the uniform rate to be 
the basis upon which the advance above demanded shall apply, with time and 
a half for overtime and double time for Sundays and holidays. 

(5) We demand a closed- shop contract, which means full recognition of the 
United Mine Workers of America as a party to the agreement. 

(6) We demand that all dead work shall be paid for on the consideration 
basis, existing at the colliery, and that where more than one miner is em- 
ployed they shall receive the same rate. 

(7) We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, timber, forepolling and 
cribbing and where miners are prevented from working on account of lack of 
supplies that they shall be accorded the opportunity of making a shift at some 
other work. 

(8) We demand in the settlement of grievances that the aggrieved parties shall 
have the right to demand settlement upon a basis of equity, and if such equity 
settlement is requested, the conditions of 1902 shall not enter into or prejudice 
the case. 

(9) We demand that a uniform rate of $.17 per inch be paid for all refuse 
in all kinds of mining up to ten feet wide, and a proportional rate be applied 
for all over ten feet. 

(10) We demand that wherever practicable coal shall be paid for on the 
legal fon basis and that dockage shall be eliminated. 

(11) We demand that on all reel motors one motorman and two brakemen 
be employed and that on all other motors and engines assistants or patchers 
be employed and that when motormen or engineers are repairing their motors 
or engines that their assistants shall be employed to help in the work. 

(12) We demand that for all tools lost through no fault of employees as a 
result of squeezes, water, or fire, the men to be compensated for such losses. 

(13) Where contract miners are employed doing company work the com- 
pany shall supply them with the necessary tools, and failing to do so shall 
compensate the miners by paying each miner not less than one extra hour per 
day for the use of such tools and that the company shall supply to all company 
men the necessary tools free of charge. 

(14) We demand that checkweighmen and check docking bosses be permitted 
to serve as members of mine committees. 

(15) We demand that where contract miners encounter abnormal conditions 
in their working places they shall have the privilege of going on consideration 
work. A definition of consideration work shall be written into the agreement. 

A subscale committee consisting of four operators and four mine 
workers was named by the joint conference, pursuant to the following- 
resolution, to wit : 

Resolved, That the demands of the mine workers be referred by this con- 
ference to a committee to consider and report back to this conference for 
ratification a definite recommendation on all the demands which have been 
presented, said committee to consist of four members representing each side, 
with a chairman to be appointed by that committee but not having a vote. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 11 

The demands of the mine workers were, as a matter of convenience, 
paragraphed by the subscale committee; demands numbered 3, 8, 
and 13. being divided into two parts each, the said demands thereafter 
consisting of 18 paragraphs instead of the 15 paragraphs as orig- 
inally presented to the joint conference. 

During the progress of the negotiations of the subscale committee 
it became apparent that no agreement would be reached before 
March 31, 1920, the date of expiration of the agreement of May 5, 
1920. and the supplemental agreement of November 15, 1918. In 
order that there should be no cessation of work in the anthracite 
mining industry the subscale committee upon March 24, 1920, 
adopted the following resolution, to wit : 

Whereas The negotiations now pending between the anthracite mine workers 
and operators may require additional time to reach a mutually satisfactory 
conclusion: and 

Whereas It is to the public interest that the supply of coal be not diminished ; 
therefore, be it 

Resolved, That pending a conclusion of the negotiations there shall be no 
cessation of work and that by mutual consent the working conditions embraced 
in the agreement ©f May 5, 1916, and the war allowances supplemental thereto, 
be continued, pending negotiations, and that whatever agreement is finally 
reached shall be retroactive to April 1, 1920. 

Upon March 30, 1920, the provisions of the foregoing resolution 
were extended to include the employees of stripping contractors in 
the anthracite region. 

Demands numbered 2 and 4 of the demands of the mine workers, 
as originally presented to the joint conference, were upon April 24, 
1920. modified by the following substitutes, to wit : 

[Substitute for Demand No. 2.] 

We demand that the present wages of the anthracite mine workers be in- 
creased to correspond to the increase granted the bituminous mine workers by 
the presidential coal commission. 

[Substitute for Demand No. 4.] 
We demand that the 8-hour day be extended to all classes of inside or 
outside day labor and monthly men with time and half time for overtime 
and double time for Sundays and holidays. 

The subscale committee continued the consideration of the matters 
before it until April 29, 1920, at which time no agreement having 
been reached and a break in the negotiations being imminent, the 
subscale committee was requested by the Secretary of Labor, Hon. 
W. B. Wilson, to meet in his office in Washington. Pursuant to the 
request of the Secretary of Labor the subscale committee met in 
Washington May 1, 1920. At this meeting and the subsequent meet- 
ings of the scale committee the Secretary of Labor was present and 
lent his efforts in an attempt to reach an agreement upon the matters 
in dispute. 



12 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

The Secretary of Labor upon May 12, 1920, submitted to the sub- 
scale committee the folloAving as a draft of an agreement, to wit : 

This agreement, made this day of May, 1920, between districts 1. 7, 

and 9, United Mine Workers of America, parties of the first part, and the 
anthracite operators, parties of the second part, covering wages and conditions 
.of employment in the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania; witnesseth : 

The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Com- 
mission and subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or supple- 
mental thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the board of conciliation, 
are hereby ratified, confirmed, and continued for a further period of two years 
•ending March 31, 1922, except in the following particulars, to wit: 

(a) The contract rates at each colliery shall be increased 65 per cent over 
and above the contract rates at each colliery, effective April, 1916, as established 
by the agreement of May 5, 1916. 

(b) The day rates of outside and inside men receiving $1,545 or more per 
day under the agreement of May 5, 1916, shall be increased 65 per cent, plus 
$1.20 per day, or per shift, above the rates established in said agreement of 
May 5, 1916, it being understood that the new rate so established shall be not 
less than $4 or more than $6 per day or per shift. 

(c) The day rates of employees receiving less than $1,545 per day under 
the agreement of May 5, 1916, shall be increased $1.50 per day, or per shift, 
above the rates established in said agreement of May 5, 1916.. 

(d) The rates paid contract miners' laborers and consideration miners' labor- 
ers shall be increased above the rates established under the agreement of May 5, 
1916, to the same amount per day as to the increase to company laborers, at 
the respective collieries, under the provisions of clause B hereof ; it being under- 
stood that, in the case of contract miners' laborers, the miners are to assume 
and pay so much of said increase as shall be represented by the application of 
■65 per cent to the rate per basis shift as established under the agreement of 
May 5, 1916, and the difference between said amount and the total increase to 
the contract miners' laborer shall be assumed and paid by the operator. 

(e) Monthly men coming under the agreement of May 5, 1916, shall be paid 
an increase of 65 per cent, plus $36 per month, over the monthly rates estab- 
lished in said agreement of May 5, 1916 ; it being understood that the increase 
thus made shall be not less han $20 or more than $30 per calendar month over 
the rates now in effect. 

(f ) The employees of stripping contractors shall be paid an increase per day, 
or per month, corresponding in amount to the difference between the rates in 
effect March, 1920, and the rates established under this agreement for employ- 

-ees of the operators in similar occupations at the same colliery. 

(g) The employees of tunnel contractors shall come within the terms of this 
agreement and the day rates of their employees shall be increased 65 per cent 
plus $1.20 per day, above the rates established under the agreement of May 5, 
1916. 

(h) The increases herein provided shall become effective April 1, 1920, and 
where they apply to day rates are to be applied to a day of eight hours or more 
as established under the agreement of May 5. 1916. 

(i) It is understood and agreed that the case of inside. pumpmen and inside 
and outside hoisting engineers working a 12-hour cross shift shall be referred to 
the board of conciliation. The board shall work out a basis of 8-hour shifts and 
the rates to be paid for an 8-hour day. Pending the decision of the board inside 
pumpmen and inside and outside hoisting engineers working a 12-hour cross shift 
shall continue on that basis and shall be paid the same increase as provided 



ANTHRACITE GOAL COMMISSION. 13 

for day men under clause B hereof. When the rates to be paid for an 8-hour 
day have been established by the board of conciliation, time in excess of 8 hours 
per day shall be paid for at the rate per hour established for the 8-hour day. 

(i) It is further understood and agreed that the board of conciliation shall 
act as a commission to make a study of, and report to the joint conference at 
the expiration of this contract, the matter of uniformity in day fates for the 
several occupations of day men at the respective collieries in the anthracite 
held. 

(&) Contract miners whose tools are lost, through no fault of their own, as 
the result of squeezes, cave-ins, and similar accidents shall be furnished with 
new tools by the company, corresponding to the tools they have lost, without 
expense to the miners. 

i / ) Whenever contract miners reporting for duty are shut out of work 
through no fault of their own, they shall be given the opportunity of working- 
in other places or at other work at the rate of wages established for such other 
places or such other work, if such other places or other work are available. 

( m ) Whenever deficient or abnormal conditions are encountered in a working: 
place by contract miners, the miner or miners affected shall make such fact 
known to the foreman ; and if the foreman and the men affected are unable to> 
agree, it shall be referred to the grievance committee and dealt with in the 
manner provided for other grievances. Work shall be continued pending the 
adjustment, unless otherwise directed by the foreman, and whatever decision is 
made shall be retroactive to the date upon which the grievance was raised. 

On behalf of the anthracite operators. 



On behalf of the United Mine Workers of America. 



President, District No. 1. 



President, District No. ?.. 



President, District No. 9^ 



President.. 
Attest : 



Chairman. 



Secretary. 

The proposed agreement of the Secretary of Labor was refected 
by the joint scale committee of the Anthracite Mine Workers and the 
following proposition submitted by them under elate of May 18, 1920 T 
to wit : 

First. Contract miners' rates to be increased 65 per cent over the 1916,basis. 

Second. Twenty per cent increase on all day rates, with a minimum increase 
of 75 cents per day and a maximum of $1 per day increase. 

Third. Boys to receive 20 per cent increase. 

Fourth. Agreements to run fol* a period of two years. 

Fifth. Same provisions with regard to the payment of contract laborers' 
increase. 

Sixth. Payment for all tools lost through no fault of the employee. 



14 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

Seventh. Where employees are prevented from working through no fault 
of their own, they shall be given the opportunity of other employment. 

Eighth. Definition of consideration work, with right to appeal any case of 
disagreement existent between miners affected and the company officials. 

Ninth. The extension of the eight-hour day to the long-hour men ; the board 
of conciliation to fix the rates for such occupations as will be affected by 
the change. 

Tenth. The commission to study and report to the next joint conference the 
matter of uniformity of rates. 

Eleventh. Agreement to be made with the United Mine Workers of America. 

Twelfth. Strike out of clause nine of the awards of the Anthracite Coal 
Strike Commission. 

To this proposition the representative of the anthracite operators 
made the following reply, to wit : 

Washington, D. C, May 19, 1920. 
Honorable W. B. Wilson, 

Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Deab Sir : We are in receipt of your communicatiou of this date, transmitting 
a memorandum showing the basis upon which the mine workers are willing to 
enter into an agreement. 

In reply thereto, we beg to state our position on each item, seriatim. 

Item No. 1 : The miners' suggestion was that contract miners' rates be in- 
creased 65 per cent over the 1916 agreement. 

Our answer to that was : " There is no difference between us on that item." 

On item 2, namely, demand on their part for an increase of 20 per cent in day 
rates we stated our position as follows : 

" Our position is that a 15 per cent advance, calculated in the manner which 
we have presented it to you, is eminently equitable. We are, however, williug 
to accept a 17 per cent proposition, similarly calculated, on a basis of 65 per 
cent plus $1.20 per day, or shift, with a minimum of $4 a day and a maximum 
of $6 a day which you have suggested to us. We are further willing to adjust 
any. class which it can be shown is unfairly compensated under this scale, to 
which you may call our attention. We definitely decline the basis of adjust- 
ment proposed by the mine workers." 

Third. We decline to increase the adjustment 30 cents per day. which we 
understand you agree established a fair wage rate for boys. 

In other words, we subscribed to the proposition made by the Secretary of 
Labor of 30 cents per day for boys. The miners asked at that time an increase 
of 20 per cent. .The Secretary's suggestion was 30 cents per day, and we sub- 
scribed to that proposition. 

Fourth. We agree to a period of 2 years, provided the contract is otherwise 
acceptable. 

Fifth. We decline to increase miners' laborers 20 per cent, with a minimum 
of 75 cents and a maximum of $1 per day, if that is intended by the miners' 
proposition. The basis we propose gives to the contract laborer the same in- 
crease per day that is granted to the company laborer, and is eminently fair. 
particularly when coupled to the proposition that the miner assumes only 65 
per cent on the basis agreed and the operator assumes the difference. 

Sixth. We agree to the provision you have suggested covering the loss of tools. 

Seventh. We agree to the provision you have 'suggested. 

Eighth. We agree to the provision you have suggested. 

Ninth. We agree to the provision you have suggested. 

Tenth. We agree to the provision you have suggested. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 15 

Eleventh. We agree to the form of contract which we have already submitted 
to yon. provided the contract in other respects is satisfactory to us. 

Twelfth. We definitely decline to enter into any contract which alters the 
principles of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Coihmission or the deci- 
sions of the board of conciliation, and especially that part of the award which 
provides for the open shop and the right of protection of all employees against 
discrimination on account of membership or nonmembership in a labor organi- 
zation. 

On May 21, 1920, a letter was received from the President of the 
United States addressed to the joint conference, said letter reading 
as follows : 

The White House, 
Washington, 21 May, 1920. 
To the Operators and Miners of the Anthracite Wage Scale Committee. 

Gentlemen : I have watched with more than passing interest your efforts to 
negotiate a new wage scale for the anthracite coal fields. The arrangement to 
continue work at the mines after April 1st pending the adoption of a new agree- 
ment, which you entered into when the previous wage scale was about to expire, 
was highly commendable and filled us all with hope that a new contract would 
be mutually worked out and the supply of anthracite coal continued without 
interruption. I sincerely trust that the hope will be fully realized. 

I have, however, been advised that there is a possibility you may not come to 
an agreement. I am sure I need not remind you that we have not yet recovered 
from the economic losses incident to the war. We need the fullest productivity 
of our people to restore and maintain their own economic standards and to assist 
in the rehabilitation of Europe. A strike at any time in a great basic industry 
like anthracite coal mining would be a very disturbing factor in our lives and 
industries. To have one take place now while we are actively engaged in the 
problems of reconstruction would be a serious disaster. Anthracite coal is used 
principally in domestic consumption. Any shortage in the supply would affect 
a multitude of homes that have been specially equipped for the use of this kind 
of fuel. It would have to be supplemented by the use of substitutes such as 
bituminous coal or oil, diverting these commodities from transportation and 
manufacturing industries which they now supply, using more cars because of 
the longer hauls and thereby reducing the efficiency of our transportation sys- 
tems that are already burdened beyond their capacity. Such a condition must 
not occur if there is any way of avoiding it. 

I am not familiar with the technical problems affecting the making of your 
wage scale. You are. You should therefore be able to effect an agreement. If 
for any reason you are unable to do so, I shall insist that the matters in dispute 
be submitted to the determination of a commission to be appointed by me, the 
award of the commission to be retroactive to the first of April in accordance with 
the arrangement you have already entered into, and that work be continued at 
the mines pending the decision of the commission. I shall hold myself in 
readiness to appoint a commission similarly constituted to the one which I 
recently appointed in connection with the bituminous coal mining industry as 
soon as I learn that both sides have signified their willingness to continue at 
work and abide by its decisions. 
Respectfully yours, 

Woodeow Wilson. 

The joint subscale committee thereupon adjourned until June 1, 
1920. In the interim between the adjournment and reconvening of 



16 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

the joint subscale committee the mine workers by the action of the 
tri-district convention of the United Mine Workers of America, and 
the operators through their representatives had agreed to the offer 
of the President to appoint a commission as outlined in the fore- 
going letter of the President. 

The joint subscale committee met at Washington, June 1, 1920, at 
which meeting the following was unanimously agreed to, viz : 

(1) The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or sup- 
plemental thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the Board »of Con- 
ciliation, will be ratified and continued, excepting insofar as they may be 
changed by the award of the commission. 

(2) When the award of the commission is made it will be written into an 
agreement between the anthracite operators and miners in such manner as 
the commission may determine. 

(3) It is understood that neither operators nor miners are in any manner 
bound by any tentative suggestions that have been made during the period of 
their negotiations and that either side shall use its own discretion in the 
presentation of its case in connection with matters at issue. 

The President upon the 3d day of June, 1920, named a commission 
as will appear by the proclamation of the President heretofore set 
forth. 

WOKK OF THE COMMISSION. 

The commission met in Scranton, Pa., upon June 24, 1920. Public 
hearings were held at which the evidence of the mine workers and 
operators was presented. 

Upon behalf of the mine workers the following exhibits were 
offered, to wit : 

(1) Pay statements of long-hour men. 

(2) Pay statements of long-hour men. 

(3) Irregularity of employment in the anthracite industry. 

(4) Comparison of earnings and wage rates in anthracite and bituminous 
mines of Pennsylvania. 

(5) Average full-time weekly earnings in the anthracite coal mines of Penn- 
sylvania. 

(6) Wage rates in New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. 

(7) Wages in various industries and occupations — A summary of wage move- 
ments. 

(8) Changes in cost of living and prices 1914-1920. 

(9) Monthly Labor Review, February, 1920. 

(10) Food prices in Scranton, Pa., in 1920, compared with prices in other 
cities. 

(11) Income and expenditures of anthracite mine workers' families in Scran- 
ton, Pa., 1920. 

(12) The relationship between rates of pay and earnings and the cost of 
living in the anthracite industry of Pennsylvania. 

(13) The sanction for a living wage — A compilation of data from official 
authoritative sources. 

(14) " What happened to Europe " — book written by Mr. Frank A. Vanderlip. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 17 

(15) Reports of the Immigration Commission — Immigrants in industries — 
Anthracite coal mining. 

(1<3) Working-men's standard of living in Philadelphia. 

(17) A Living Wage, a study of wage conditions by Rev. John A. Ryan, D. D. 

i IS I Standards of living, a compilation of budgetary studies. 
( 19 ) Cost of living in coal towns. 

(20) What a living wage should be, as determined by authoritative budget 
studies. 

(21) The practicability of a living wage. 

( 22 ) The trade-union as the basis for collective bargaining, a compilation of 
sanctions and experience. 

i 23 ) Report to the President of the anthracite coal strike of May-October, 
1902. by the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission. 
(24 V The sanction for the eight-hour day. 

(25) The case for the shorter work day — brief for defendant in error, 
i 2(3 ) Occupational hazard of anthracite miners. 

( 27 ) Additional statements of long-hour men, supplementing Miners' Ex- 
hibit No. 2. 

(28) Report of Senate committee investigating strike in steel industries. 
( 29 ) Prices in Scranton, Pa., in 1919-20, secured from local dealers. 

( 30 ) Anthracite mine laws of Pennsylvania. 

(31) Pay statements of certain employees. 

( 32 ) Rates of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. -upon miners' risk. 

Upon behalf of the operators the following exhibits were offered, 
to wit : 

(1) Reply of anthracite operators to demands of anthracite mine workers. 

(2) Statement showing breaker starts and days worked during year 1919 
at operations producing 80 per cent of the total anthracite tonnage. 

(3) Monthly Labor Review for June, 1920. 

(4) Growth of bank deposits in the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania 
for the years 1916-1920. 

(5) Statement showing total net earnings and net earnings per start of 
contract miners during the months of October, November, and December, 1919, 
at operations of nine companies producing about 75 per cent of the total 
anthracite output. 

(6) Irregularity of employment in the anthracite industry. 

(6A) Cost reports of the Federal Trade Commission, Coal No. 2, Pennsyl- 
vania — Anthracite, June 30, 1919. 

(7) Comparison of wage rates in anthracite and bituminous mines. 
(7A) Wages and hours of. labor in the coal-mining industry in 1919. 

(7B) Letter from Charles E. Baldwin, Acting Commissioner of Labor Sta- 
tistics. 

(8) Average full-time weekly earnings in the anthracite mines of Pennsyl- 
vania. 

(9) Wage rates in New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. 

(10) Income and expenditures of anthracite mine workers' families. 

(11) The relationship between rates of pay and earnings and the cost of liv- 
ing in the anthracite industry of Pennsylvania. 

(11A) The case of the bituminous coal miners as presented by the United 
Mine Workers of America to the presidential coal commission. 

(12) Dealing with the cost of living and a living wage. 
8336—20 3 



18 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

(13) Occupational hazard of anthracite miners. 

(14) Annual earnings, by occupations, of employees working throughout the 
year 1919 for the nine companies producing about To p< r cent of the total anthra- 
cite output. 

(15) Scale agreement between the United Mine Workers of America, district 
No. 2, and the bituminous operators of central Pennsylvania, 1916, and supple- 
ments. 

(16) Food prices in Scranton, Pa., in 1920, compared with prices in other 
cities. 

(17) Prices in Scranton, Pa., 1919, and 1920 (secured from local dealers). 

(18) Being sketch, showing death rate per thousand coal miners, 1913-1917, 
New York males, 1909-1911. 

After hearing the testimony and arguments of the respective par- 
ties a tour of the anthracite region was made by the commission; 
several mines were inspected and a general survey made of the hous- 
ing and housing conditions by the mine workers. 

DEMANDS OF THE MINE WORKERS. 

The questions in dispute between anthracite coal operators and 
miners referred to this commission to hear and decide are as follows, 
to wit : 

(1) We demand that the next contract be for a period not exceeding two (2) 
years and that the making of individual agreements and contracts in the mining 
of coal shall be prohibited. 

(2) We demand that the present wages of the anthracite mine workers be 
increased to correspond to the increases granted the bituminous mine workers 
by the Presidential Coal Commission. 

(3) We demand that a imiform wage scale be established so that the va- 
rious occupations of like character at the several collieries shall command the 
same wage. 

(4) We demand that. shovel crews operating for coal companies shall be paid 
not less than the rates paid by contractors to shovel men. 

(5) We demand that the eight-hour day be extended to all classes of inside 
and outside day labor and monthly men with time and half time for overtime 
and double time for Sundays and holidays. 

(6) We demand a closed-shop contract, which means full recognition of the 
United Mine Workers of America as a party to the agreement. 

(7) We demand that all dead work shall be paid for on the consideration 
basis, existing at the colliery, and that where more than one miner is employed 
they shall receive the same rate. 

(8) We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, timber, forepolling, and 
cribbing. 

(9) We demand, where miners are prevented from working on account of 
lack of supplies, that they shall be accorded the opportunity of making a shift 
at some other work. 

(10) We demand in the settlement of grievances that the aggrieved parties 
shall have the right to demand settlement, upon a basis of equity, and if such 
equity settlement is requested the conditions of 1902 shall not enter into or 
prejudice the case. 

(11) We demand that a uniform rate of $0.17 per inch be paid for all refuse 
in all kinds of mining up to ten feet wide, and a proportional rate be applied 
for all over ten feet. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 19 

U2) We demand that wherever miners are now paid on the car basis that 
hereafter they shall be paid on the legal ton basis and that dockage shall be 
eliminated. 

(13) We demand that on all reel motors one motorman and two brakemen 
be employed and that on all other motors and engines assistants or patchers 
be employed, and that when motormen or engineers are repairing their motors 
or engines that their assistants shall be employed to help in the work. 

(14) We demand that for all tools lost through no fault of employees as a 
result of squeezes, water or fire, the men to be compensated for such losses. 

(15) Where contract miners are employed doing company work the company 
shall supply them with the necessary tools and failing to do so shall compensate 
the miners by paying each miner not less than one extra hour per day for the 
use of such tools. 

(16) We demand that the company shall supply to all company men the ' 
necessary tools free of charge. 

(17) We demand that checkweighmen and check docking bosses be permitted 
to serve as members of mine committees. 

(18) We demand that where contract miners encounter abnormal conditions 
in their working places they shall have the privilege of going on consideration 
work. A definition of consideration work shall be written into the agreement. 

RULING OF THE COMMISSION CONCERNING ITS JURISDICTION IN 
VIEW OF QUESTIONS RAISED BY PRESENTATION OF CERTAIN 
EXHIBITS. 

During the progress of the hearings the representatives of the 
operators raised objection to the presentation of certain exhibits pre- 
pared by the mine workers. The titles of these exhibits were as 
follows : 

1. The relations between wages and production, costs, prices, and profits in 
the anthracite mining industry. 

2. Profits of anthracite operators. 

3. Freight rates on anthracite coal. 

4. Wholesale and retail prices of anthracite coal. 

5. Operating and financial performance of anthracite railroads. 

6. Combination in the anthracite industry. 

7. Summary, analysis and statement. 

The ruling of the commission upon its jurisdiction as raised by the 
offer to present said exhibits w as as follows : 

First. General authority and jurisdiction. 

In a letter to the operators and miners of the anthracite wage scale commit- 
tee under date of May 21, 1920, among other matters, President Wilson said : 
" I shall insist that the matters in dispute be submitted to the determination 
of a commission to be appointed by me." 

Later in the above communication the President said : " I shall hold myself 
in readiness to appoint a commission similarly constituted to the one which I 
recently appointed in connection with the bituminous coal mining industry." 

The commission construes these references as notice to both parties that in 
the event of their failure to reach an agreement a commission would be ap- 
pointed in accordance with the terms above stated. 



20 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

It appears that on May 27, at Wilkes-Bar re, there was submitted to the 
officers and delegates of the tri-distriet convention of the United Mine Workers 
of America a report in which the following resolution was adopted, namely : 

" That we accept the offer of the President of the United States for the ap- 
pointment of a commission as contained in his letter addressed to the operators' 
and. mine workers' scale committee, under date of May 21, 1920, and that work 
be continued under the retroactive understanding agreed to between operators 
and miners and reiterated by the President, which will protect the mine 
workers in wage increases as from April 1." 

On June 1, certain gentlemen, representing the operators, presented the 
following to the Secretary of Labor : 

■• Juxe 1, 3920. 
" Hon. W. B. Wilsox. 

'• secretary of Labor, ^YasTti)lgton. D. C. 

"Dear Sir: We. the undersigned operators representing the negotiating com- 
mittee of the anthracite operators, have received through you a communica- 
tion from the President making an offer to appoint a commission to decide 
the questions in dispute between us and the anthracite mine workers. 

iS We agree, on behalf of the anthracite operators, to the offer of the Presi- 
dent to appoint such commission, and further agree to abide by its award. 
" Respectfully yours, 

"■ W. L. CONNEIX, 

"C. F. Hubee. 

"W. J. RlCHAKflS, 

" S. D. Wabbixee." 

On June 1 the following resolutions were adopted by the joint scale com- 
mittee : 

"(1) The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or sup- 
plemental thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the board of con- 
ciliation, will be ratified and continued, excepting in so far as they may be 
changed by the award of the commission. 

" (2) When the award of the commission is made it will be written into an 
agreement between the anthracite operators and miners in such maimer as 
the commission may determine. 

"(3) It is understood that neither operators nor miners are in any manner 
bound by any tentative suggestions that have been made during the period of 
their negotiations and that either side shall use its own discretion in the 
presentation of its case in connection with the matters at issue." 

On June 5, 1920, the operators and miners having failed to reach an agree- 
ment and having agreed as above cited to the appointment of a commission, 
the President issued a proclamation, now a matter of record in these proceed- 
ings. In paragraph four of this proclamation the President refers to his letter 
of May 21. 1920, using again the phrase " matters in dispute." In the para- 
graph constituting the commission the record is as follows : 

;i Now, Therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson. President of the United States, 
hereby appoint William O. Thompson, of Columbus, Ohio; Xeal J. Ferry, of 
McAdoo, Pennsylvania, and William L. Connell, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a 
commission to hear and decide the questions in dispute between the anthracite 
coal operators and miners. Its report will be made within sixty days, if 
possible, will be retroactive to April 1, 1920, and will be made the basis of a 
new wage agreement between the anthracite operators and miners in such 
manner as the commission may determine." 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 21 

t*ursuant to this proclamation thus represented the miners have presented 
IS demands and certain conditions of submission. These conditions of submis- 
sion and the 18 demands are matters of record in the transcript of the pro- 
ceedings of the first day, pages 21 to 26, inclusive. 

It is the opinion of the commission, and it now so rules that the authority and 
jurisdiction of the commission are specifically outlined in these documents and 
that the " matters in dispute " to be decided fall within the limit of the 18 
demands. 

The commission does not recognize the interpretation of implied jurisdiction 
as broadening the scope of the public interest but is of the opinion, and so holds, 
that the public interest represented in this controversy is confined to the ques- 
tion of wages, hours of work, recognition of the United Mine Workers of 
America, and other matters clearly stated in the 18 demands. 

The reference in the President's communication to a commission " similarly 
constituted to the one appointed in connection with the bituminous coal-mining 
industry " offers no suggestion as to powers, duties, or jurisdiction. 

The commission, therefore, holds that this paragraph refers sole y to the 
representative character of the commission in which the parties to the dispute 
and the public are represented. 

Second. Concerning certain exhibits. 

The commission is of the opinion and now rules that the seven exhibits 
purporting to set out the relation between wages and wholesale and retail 
prices, the situation as to freight rates, the operation and financing of anthra- 
cite railroads and other exhibits are not germane to the matters in dispute and 
the issues before this commission as outlined and defined by the 18 demands. 
The commission fully recognizes the public interest in these questions and 
their vital importance to the public welfare. The commission, however, recog- 
nizes the limits of its own authority and therefore rules that these exhibits to 
which objection has been raised offer no contribution to the solution of the 
issues pending and will not be admitted as part of the evidence in the case. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W. O. Thompson, Chairman. 

THE LIMITATIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION WORKED. 

The ruling cited above recognized that the task set before the 
present commission was altogether different from the task of the 
commission of 1902. The circumstances calling for the commissions 
were radically different. The one grew out of a great strike. The 
other arose from a few differences between the representatives of the 
two parties at interest. 

The fact is here emphasized because of the popular misappre- 
hension as to the powers and duties of the commission. The current 
outcry against the advancing prices of anthracite coal and of its 
scarcity in certain markets assumed that the commission had been 
appointed to deal with all matters in which the consumers of anthra- 
cite coal were interested. There is no doubt about the public interest 
in the supply of coal, questions of freight rates, retail prices, profits, 
and other factors in the production and distribution of coal, but these 
questions were not submitted. It is important that this fact should 
be understood by all having any interest in this award. 



22 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

THE ANTHRACITE COAL STRIKE COMMISSION OF 1902. 

The substantial character of the work of that commission is evi- 
dent from the fact that for almost 18 years the anthracite in- 
dustry has made steady progress, enjoying for the most part indus- 
trial peace. Among other features it is well worth while to direct 
attention to the award which provided for a board of conciliation 
composed of six members ; three from the operators and three from 
the miners. This is, perhaps, the most valuable and most abiding 
feature of the work of that epoch making commission. The experi- 
ence of this board of conciliation is a high tribute to the spirit in 
which all parties have cooperated. The results have been most 
happy. If the present commission could do so it would gladly lend 
every influence for the increasing of confidence in this method of 
dealing with industrial grievances. The organization of mine com- 
mittees, commonly known as grievance committees, has increased the 
efficiency of the machinery ior dealing with the numerous but in- 
evitable annoyances that arise in a great mining industry. The pub- 
lic interest in all labor controversies is well served when the principle 
of conciliation is active in the settlement of grievances and disputes. 

THE AWARD. 

The public interest in the award centers chiefly around the wages 
determined upon and the effect of these wages upon prices. The 
commission has sought to be conservative in the award while making 
provision for a substantial improvement in the situation of the miner. 
The award is made with the primary purpose of making the posi- 
tion of the men performing common ordinary labor more tolerable 
and of preserving the differentials between the several classes of 
labor. The commission declines to commit itself to an award which 
could justly be considered as an encouragement to the so-called 
" vicious spiral " in prices. This award while providing improved 
conditions for the employees offers no justification for any advance 
in the retail prices of coal, but on the other hand is consistent with a 
decline in prices. The award has not passed a great burden along to 
the consumer of coal. Any sharp advance in the retail price of coal 
could not be charged to the operators, the miners or the award. 

In order that the possibilities of this award may be realized it is 
important that there be the heartiest spirit of cooperation by all 
parties. It assumes that the operators will use every effort to keep 
the mines in active operation and thus afford the miner opportunity 
for regularity of employment, Much emphasis in the hearings was 
given to the statement that the anthracite industry had become sub- 
stantially a continuous industry. It is important that this statement 
be realized in experience as it affects both the annual earnings and 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 23 

the annual production. In one of these the miner is vitally concerned 
and in the other the public is profoundly interested. 

Coal mining* in the past has suffered from intermittency more 
than most other industries. Irregularity in service would in most 
industries be the cause of dismissal. It is not so in mining. This 
award is made upon the assumption of increasing regularity of the 
mines and of the miner. If, for any reason, or for a number of rea- 
sons combined, this regularity should fail' the award will be disap- 
pointing. The commission indulges the hope that the improved 
opportunity will result in developing regularity of employment, 
greater earnings for the miners and a lower cost of production for 
the operators. This points the way to a reduced cost of coal to the 
consumer while maintaining the earnings of the miner and the 
reasonable profits of the operator. 

The terms of the award are given in detail as follows : 

I. The commission adjudges and awards : That the terms and 
provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission 
and subsequent agreements made in modification thereof, or sup- 
plemental thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the board 
of conciliation, shall be ratified and continued, excepting insofar as 
they are changed by the terms of the awards of this commission. 

II. The commission adjudges and awards: That the increases pro- 
vided in the awards of the commission hereinafter set forth shall be 
paid to the legal representatives of such employees as may have 
died since April 1, 1920. 

Demand No. 1. 

(1) We demand that the next contract be for a period not exceeding two (2) 
years and that the making of individual agreements and contracts in the 
mining of coal shall be prohibited. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

(a) That item one of this demand being agreed to by both opera- 
tors and miners be answered in the affirmative and made a part of 
the report. 

(b) That concerning item two, the commission holds that the right 
of contract can not be denied and therefore returns a negative reply 
on the principle. The commission places on record its judgment as 
unfavorable to the general extension of the subcontract system, while 
recognizing the necessity of such subcontracts under certain condi- 
tions. The commission recognizes, however, that abuses of the con- 
tract system of mining are possible and has listened with sympathy 
to a recital of some of these alleged abuses. In order to remove so 
far as possible all such abuses the commission hereby directs that 
upon the complaint of any employee affected, the board of concilia- 
tion shall review the practices in existing or proposed individual 



24 ANTHKACITE COAL COMMISSION". 

agreements and contracts as included in demand number one. The 
board of conciliation, by way of appeal, shall promptly give consid- 
eration to the complaint and render decision in the case. The board 
of conciliation, in case of appeal, shall consider and decide the ques- 
tion of the terms of the contract involving rates of pay and other 
conditions in such way as to protect and conserve the rights of all 
the employees in the colliery affected. 

Demand No. 2. 

(2) We demand that the present wages of the anthracite mine workers oe 
by the presidential coal commission, 
increased to correspond to the increases granted the bituminous mine workers 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

(a) The contract rates at each colliery shall be increased 65 per 
cent over and above the contract rates at each colliery effective Aprils 
1916, as established under the agreement of May 5, 1916. 

(b) The hourly rates of outside and inside company men. re- 
ceiving $1,545 or more per day under the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
shall be increased 17 per cent, said increase to be applied to the total 
rate now in effect, namely, the base rate established under the agree- 
ment of May 5, 1916, plus the war allowance granted under the sup- 
plemental agreement of November 15, 1918 ; it being understood that 
the new rate so established shall be not less than fifty-two and one-half 
(52J) cents per hour for those employed on the basic eight-hour day. 
In the case of company men employed on the shift basis, the shift 
rate shall be increased IT per cent, said increase to be applied to the 
rate now in effect; it being understood that the new rate so estab- 
lished shall be not less than $4.20 per shift. 

(c) The hourly rates of outside and inside employees, receiving 
less than $1,545 per day under the agreement of May 5, 1916, shall 
be increased four (4) cents per hour over the rates now in effect, 
namely, the base rate established under the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
plus the war allowance granted under the supplemental agreement 
of November 15, 1918. 

(d) The rates paid consideration miners shall be increased 17 per. 
cent, said increase to be applied to the total rate now in effect, 
namely, the base rate established under the agreement of May 5, 
1916, plus the war allowance granted under the supplemental agree- 
ment of November 15, 1918. 

(e) The rates paid contract miners' laborers and consideration 
miners' laborers shall be increased above the rates established under 
the agreement of May 5, 1916, to the same amount per day as the 
increase to company laborers, at the respective collieries, under the 
provisions of Clause B hereof; it being understood that, in the case 
of contract miners' laborers, the miner is to assume and pay so much 



ANTHKACITE COAL COMMISSION. 25 

of said increase as shall be represented by the application of 65 per 
cent to the rate per basic shift, as established under the agreement 
of May 5, 1916, and the difference between said amount and the 
total increase to the contract miners' laborer shall be assumed and 
paid by the operator. 

(/) Monthly men coming under the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
shall be paid an increase of IT per cent, said increase to be applied 
to the total rate now in effect, namely, the base rate established 
under the agreement of May 5, 1916, plus $54 per calendar month 
in the case of outside employees, and the base rate under said agree- 
ment plus $60 per calendar month in the case of inside employees. 

(g) The increases herein proyided shall become effective April 1, 
1920, and the amount due for the period April 1 to August 31, shall 
be paid as follows: 

The amount due for April, with the pay for the first half of 
September, and the amount due for each of the succeeding four 
months with the pay for each semimonthly pay period thereafter. 

Demand No. 3. 

(3) We demand that a uniform wage scale be established so that the various 
occupations of like character at the several collieries shall command the same 
wage. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

The board of conciliation shall act as a commission to make a 
study of, and report to, the Joint Conference at the expiration of 
this contract, or sooner if practicable, the matter of uniformity in 
day rates for the several occupations of day men of the respective 
collieries in the anthracite field. 

Demand No. 4. 

(4) We demand that shovel crews operating for coal companies shall be paid 
not less than the rates paid by contractors to shovel men. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

This demand is based upon the fact that in many instances the 
rates paid to shovel crews working for stripping contractors are 
higher than the rates paid to shovel crews working for a company. 
The rates paid to company employees have been established for many 
years. In the establishment of these rates it can be assumed that due 
regard was had for the classification of labor and the differentials. 
The rates paid the employees of stripping contractors are fixed upon 
a different and independent basis. This demand seeks to determine 
the rates for one class of employees without regard to the effect upon 
other classes of company employees and upon the differentials. The 
commission therefore can not grant this demand. 



26 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION". 

Demand No. 5. 

(5) We demand that the eight-hour day be extended to all classes of inside 
and outside day labor and monthly men with time and half time for overtime 
and double time for Sundays and holidays. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

(1) That the case of inside pumpmen and inside and outside 
hoisting engineers, working a twelve-hour cross shift, shall be re- 
ferred to the board of conciliation. The board shall work out a 
basis of eight-hour shifts and the rates to be paid* for an eight-hour 
day. Pending the decision of the board, inside pumpmen and in- 
side and outside hoisting engineers, working a twelve-hour cross 
shift shall continue on that basis and shall be paid the same increase 
as provided for day men under Clause B in our answer to the wage 
demand. When the rates to be paid for an eight-hour day have been 
established by the board of conciliation, time in excess of eight hours 
per day shall be paid for at the rate per hour established for the 
eight-hour day. 

(2) The demand for time and half time for overtime and double 
time for Sunda}^ and holidays. 

It is well known that the principle underlying this demand has 
been defended by its friends and advocates everywhere for the reason 
that such excess pay for overtime would act as a deterrent and thus 
serve to strengthen the eight-hour day as the normal working day. 
The anthracite industry is now organized on the basic eight-hour 
day. The commission does not understand that either the operators 
or the miners desire to abolish the existing basic eight-hour day. 
Tt is freely recognized that while the eight-hour clay is generally 
applicable there are necessary services requiring more than an eight- 
hour day. By mutual consent and agreements entered into a certain 
number of employees work a longer day and are paid the usual rates 
for this overtime. If this demand is to be interpreted as preventing 
OA'ertime. except in cases of great emergency when special rates might 
well be paid, then these agreements must be set aside and important 
consequences follow the reorganization necessary. 

Certain cases where a 12-hour shift is now in operation are by 
this commission referred to the Board of Conciliation. It is the 
opinion of the commission that this reference will bring about any 
desired and desirable changes. The commission does not desire in 
the least to encourage any departure from the eight-hour day or to 
encourage any permanence of long-hour days except where the neces- 
sities of the organization require it. Under these conditions it does 
not approve the demand for extra pay for overtime. 

Upon the question of Sundays and holidays it may be said that 
where continuous operation is necessary, as in many of the activi- 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 27 

ties of modern industry, that fact is taken into consideration and 
forms part of the contract. The commission does not concur in the 
theory that any workman should be permitted or required to work 
the 52 Sundays in a year or be denied the privilege of holidays. It 
is obvious that some one must be in service at all hours. The sched- 
ule should be so adjusted that workers could have relief. The com- 
mission of 1902 in recognition of this situation definitely provided 
that men should be relieved from duty on Sundays without loss of 
pay by a man provided by the employer to relieve them during the 
hours of the day shift. 

The commission sees no sufficient reason for disturbing the present 
adjustment and therefore takes no further action than that con- 
templated in referring this demand to the board of conciliation as 
above. The demand for time and half time for overtime and double 
time for Sundays and holidays is denied. 

Demand No. 6. 

(6) We demand a closed shop contract which means full recognition of the- 
United Mine Workers of America as a party to the agreement. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

That the commission approves the request for recognition of the 
United Mine Workers of America as party to the agreement in- 
adjusting the differences between the operators and the miners in 
all the contractual relations between the parties and directs that the 
form of contract entered into as provided in this award shall be 
between districts 1, 7, and 9 of the United Mine Workers of America, 
as represented by the presidents of the three districts, and the an- 
thracite operators. 

Provided, however, that this official recognition of the United 
Mine Workers of America for the purpose of adjusting differences 
and strengthening collective bargaining, does not carry with it 
the theory or the fact of the "closed shop," or the "check off"; 
and provided further, that it does not in any degree interfere with 
or annul the provisions of the award of 1902 in which the rights 
and * privileges of nonunion men were stated and protected; and 
provided further, that in cases where nonunion employees have 
grievances or where for any reason the grievance committee or 
mine committee fails to give such grievance consideration satis- 
factory to the employee, his right to appeal from the decision of 
the foreman or grievance committee and to the board of conciliation 
shall be inviolate. 

Demand No. 7. 

(7) We demand that all deadwork shall be paid for on the consideration basis, 
existing at the colliery, and that where more than one miner is employed rliey 
shall receive the same rate. 



28 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION". 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

This demand is based upon the principle that the rates paid for an 
employee's principal occupation should obtain when for any reason 
he is occupied temporarily in another kind of employment. The ex- 
igencies of any ordinary business may make such temporary trans- 
fers desirable from the standpoint of the emplo}-er. The employee, 
however, is under no obligation to accept such transfer. In many 
instances he has a choice between idleness enforced by circumstances 
be3 T ond control and the use of his time at such compensation as the 
company can offer. The arrangement must always, therefore, be one 
of mutual agreement. Xo adequate reason has been presented to the 
commission why the rate prevailing for any type of work should not 
govern in the case of all persons engaged in that work. 

The demand is, therefore, denied. 

Demand Xo. S. 

(8) We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, timber, forepolling, and 
cribbing. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

This demand seeks to secure payment for the items named as a 
separate contract. The testimony presented did not establish the 
assumption that payment was not made for the work. On the other 
hand, the claim was distinctly made that these items were within the 
terms of the contract. The claim was made that the base rates estab- 
lished in 1902 are unfair. It should be borne in mind that in all 
wage adjustments subsequent to that date the alleged unfairness* of 
an earlier date tends to disappear with each new adjustment. The 
demand, therefore, if granted, would tend to disturb the wage struc- 
ture. The commission is of the opinion that the maintenance of the 
wage structure subject to adjustment in rates from time to time is 
the surest method of preserving desirable features and of removing 
causes of grievance. 

The demand is, therefore, denied. 

Demand Xo. 9. 

(9) We demand where miners are prevented from working on account of lack 
of supplies that they shall be accorded the opportunity of making a shift at some 
other work. 

This demand, after discussion, was, upon motion of Commissioner 
Ferry, withdrawn. 

Demand Xo. 10. 

(10) We demand in the settlement of grievances that the aggrieved parties 
shall have the right to demand settlement, upon a basis of equity, and if such 
equity settlement is requested the conditions of 1902 shall not enter into or 
prejudice the case. 



, ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 29 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

The commission interprets this demand in the light of the evidence 
presented to be that in case of any grievances arising the case shall 
be considered in the light of the facts as they exist at the time and 
that precedents and rules established through experience shall not 
apply. This in effect would set aside or nullify many of the prece- 
dents developed since the award of 1902. 

The plea was made that these precedents worked hardship on miners 
not acquainted with the conditions established nearly two decades 
ago. The evidence presented failed, however, to impress the com- 
mission of anything more than the theoretical possibility of an abuse. 
It also failed to show in what particulars the established custom had 
developed any abuses that would be corrected or abolished under the 
proposals in the demand. 

The commission, therefore, denies the request contained in the de- 
mand. 

Demand No. 11. 

(11) We demand that a uniform rate of $0.17 per inch be paid for all refuse 
in all kinds of mining up to ten feet wide, and a proportional rate be applied for 
all over ten feet. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

This demand is essentially the same in principle with demand 
number eight in that it is a desire to appeal from the condition estab- 
lished by the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission of 
1902 and the subsequent agreements, and to provide by separate con- 
tract for the payment for refuse on the assumption that it is not now 
paid for. The evidence supports the statement that in many, if not 
in all, cases payment is made. The contention, therefore, is for a 
new rate based upon certain alleged unsatisfactory rates at present 
in force. It was developed during the hearings that from time to 
time adjustments had been made through collective bargaining. 

The commission, therefore, denies this demand. 

Demand No. 12. 

(12) We demand that wherever miners are now paid on the car basis that 
hereafter they shall be paid on the legal ton basis, and that dockage shall be 
eliminated. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

This demand for two things — the substitution of measure by 
weight for the present method of payment by the car, and the elimi- 
nation of the system of dockage — presented by the miners, involves a 
reconstruction of the basis of pay in force from the beginning. The 
subject was before the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission in 1902 
and was made the subject of formal discussion from the legal and 
other points of view. 



20 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. , 

The present commission is asked to treat the same problem essen 
tially that was presented to the former commission except that a price 
per ton is not now included and the elimination of the practice of 
dockage is included. 

In support of the demand the system in use was challenged as 
unfair; that payment resulting from an unfair system was also 
unsatisfactory : that the changes in the marketing of coal since 1902, 
by which smaller sizes were utilized, made it reasonable that the sys- 
tem of weighing should be applied to the miner as to the purchaser 
of the commodity. There can be no question that a just weight, in 
the last analysis, is the best test for compensation. * In the develop- 
ment of the subject, however, the evidence to sustain the inference of 
injustice to the miner was not presented. It may be impossible to 
secure and present such evidence in a conclusive manner. On the 
other hand it was affirmed that in certain collieries where payment 
by weight had been installed the practical results were no more 
satisfactory than where payment by the car was the practice. It is 
apparent that so long as there are impurities in the seams or veins 
a source of dissatisfaction and complaint exists. The operators will 
complain about the amount of impurities in the car and the miner 
about the payment, Eecognizing the justice of both these complaints, 
there would appear to be an economic pressure on both parties to 
adjust the conditions so as to remove abuses. The operators contend 
that payment by the car as practiced has been brought to a substan- 
tially accurate basis, and that payment has been adjusted to experi- 
ence under the existing practice until no financial hardship is put 
upon the miner. They further contend that under these conditions 
there is no need of a change, and that to substitute the change as 
proposed would involve a readjustment of the whole question of 
miners' wages. 

In the absence of conclusive evidence that the present system is 
working serious injustice to the miner, the commission denies the 
demand and reaffirms the award of 1902, viz, that during the life of 
this award the present methods of payment for coal mined shall be 
adhered to, unless changed by mutual agreement. 

Demand No. 13. 

(13) We demand that on all reel motors one motorman and two brakemen 
be employed and that on all other motors and engines assistants or patchers be 
employed, and that when motormen or engineers are repairing their motors or 
engines that their assistants shall be employed to help in the work. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

This demand looks to two things; first, the determination of how 
the reel motors shall be operated by naming the number and the 
grade of the men to be employed, and second, the determination and 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 31 

control of the repairs of the motors or engines by naming the 
definite employment of certain employees. 

The evidence presented is not convincing as to the need of the men 
suggested. In case of trouble arising it would naturally be dealt 
with through the usual channels. Moreover, the responsibility for 
the property, which is in some cases quite expensive, vests in the 
owners and operators. The responsibility for repairs also vests in 
the same persons. The assignment, therefore, of men to the repair 
work must always rest with the responsible parties. 

The commission, therefore, denies the demand. 

Demand No. 14. 

(14) We demand that for all tools lost, through no fault of employees, as a 
result of squeezes, water, or fire, the men to be compensated for such losses. 

The commission adjudges and awards: 

Contract miners whose tools are lost through no fault of their own 
as the result of squeezes, cave-ins, and similar accidents, shall be 
furnished with new tools by the company, corresponding to the tools 
lost, without expense to the miner. 

Demand No. 15. 

(15) Where contract miners are employed doing company work the com- 
pany shall supply them with the necessary tools and failing to do so shall 
compensate the miners by paying each miner not less than one extra hour per 
day for the use of such tools. 

Demand No. 16. 

(16) We demand that the company shall supply to all company men the 
necessary tools free of charge. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

These two demands have been thrown together in the hearings and 
in the discussions owing to the fact that they both deal with the fact 
of ownership and one deals with the proposal of pay for the use of 
privately owned tools. 

It may be assumed that any long-established custom that has grown 
up in a community, or in an industry has some good reason for its 
permanence. It is true that abuses may arise from time to time and 
persist. It is also to be presumed that the rates of pay have taken 
into account the conditions under which the service is rendered. 
In the case of contract miners it is fair to presume that the rates 
of pay presumed private ownership of tools for all contract work 
and that the company work would be a small part of the contract 
miners' labor. In that case the factor of pay for the use of tool? 
would be negligible. If, however, the amount of company work 



32 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

done by the contract miner should greatly increase and no considera- 
tion of that fact be given attention in the adjustment of rates, an 
abuse would clearly develop and a grievance be established. If, for 
example, two-thirds of a contract miner's time was occupied in com- 
pany work and no consideration for the use of tools be given, the 
conditions would be quite the reverse of those under which the exist- 
ing custom arose. The existing machinery would deal with such a 
grievance at any time and compensate the contract miner as the facts 
would seem to justify. 

On the fact of company ownership of tools versus individual own- 
ership it should be noted that there is no rule other than custom. In a 
manufacturing establishment the lathes would be owned by the com- 
pany. The same custom prevails on the farms. In contract labor, 
however, the contractor usually owns his own equipment and tools. 
Any departure from this would be the subject of consideration in the 
contract. In the mining industry the custom of private ownership 
of tools has developed. There are certain reasons for this custom, 
among which may be mentioned that of responsibility for the loss of 
tools. Other reasons are obvious to any one familiar with the indus- 
try. The real issue is, therefore, whether under the existing custom 
abuses have developed that demand a reform of the abuses or an 
abolition of the custom. The most apparent motive for these 
demands was the financial one. Another demand is really for the 
relief of the miners from the burden of the investment necessary for 
ownership. The evidence was not convincing that the burden was 
excessive or that the miners themselves were urgent in the demand. 
No abuses of severe character were alleged. The commission, there- 
fore, is of the opinion that there is not at the present time any urgency 
in this demand and answers it in the negative. 

Demand No. 17. 

(17) We demand that checkweighinen and check docking bosses be permitted 
to serve as members of mine committees. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

The contention here is that these men are ordinarily selected from 
among the miners and are experienced in the details about which 
grievances arise. It is further contended that they have been selected 
after the plan had been approved by the operators and might reason- 
ably be construed as employees of the company. 

On the other hand the operators contend that this demand is not 
in harmony with the agreement of 1912, in which it was stipulated 
that the mine committee should be constituted by the selection of 
three employees of the company. They deny that these men are em- 
ployees of the company. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 3§ 

It is clear that these men in question are elected by the contract 
miners and are paid by them. It would require, in order to meet this 
demand, an amendment to the agreement of 1912, which the parties 
themselves can make, if they so desire, or an enforcing of the amend- 
ment by the commission. The commission declines to take this ac- 
tion, and, therefore, denies the demand. 

Demand No. IS. 

(IS) We demand that where contract miners encounter abnormal condi- 
tions in their working places they shall have the privilege of going on con- 
sideration work. A definition of consideration work shall be written into the 
agreement. 

The commission adjudges and awards : 

Whenever deficient or abnormal conditions are encountered in a 
working place by contract miners, the miner or miners affected shall 
make such fact known to the foreman, and if the foreman and the 
men affected are unable to agree upon compensation based on the 
method or practice for such payment at the mine aifected, it shall be 
referred to the grievance committee and dealt with in the manner 
provided for other grievances. Work shall be continued pending the 
adjustment unless otherwise directed by the foreman, and whatever 
decision is made shall be retroactive to the date upon which the 
grievance was raised. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W, O. Thompson, 

Chairman. 

W. L. CONNELL, 

Commissioner. 
Attest : 

James A. Gorman, 

Executive Secretary. 



THE MINORITY REPORT 

OF 

Commissioner NEAL J. FERRY 

OF THE 

United States Anthracite Coal Commission 

TO 

THE PRESIDENT 



35 



MINORITY REPORT. 



Mt Dear Mr. President : It is with regret that I have to inform 
you that, as the representative of the anthracite workers on this 
commission, I find myself unable to accede to the report of the 
chairman and of the representative of the anthracite operators. As 
a matter of fact, this report is an exceedingly great disappointment 
to us. It is unnecessary for me to state, however, that whatever 
our opinions may be as to the merits of this report, we are fully 
conscious of our obligation of honor and good faith in the matter. 
The officers of the United Mine Workers of America will, of course, 
accept and carry out this majority award in the anthracite mines 
with the most scrupulous care and with the utmost good faith. All 
of our energies and authority, without reservation, will be devoted 
to this end. 

To our minds, this commission had an unprecedented opportunity 
for real industrial statesmanship and for a splendid public service in 
this period of reconstruction. No one can appreciate more than we 
do. Mr. President, the necessity for the fullest cooperation between 
labor and capital at the present time, and the duty of both to seek 
harmony and cooperation in their working relations so that the con- 
tinuity of production may be unimpaired and its maximum propor- 
tions attained with the object constantly in view, not only to relieve 
the grievous physical needs of our country, but also of the entire 
civilized world. Especially is this true in the case of such an essen- 
tial commodity as anthracite coal, and throughout the proceedings 
it is to this end that our efforts have been constantly directed. We 
have realized and have constantly reiterated the point of view, which 
the operators have refused to accept, that the public interest, in a 
controversy of this kind, is paramount. We also have freely con- 
ceded that capital, prudently and honestly invested in the anthracite 
industry, must have a fair, and even a liberal, return so as to stimu- 
late the greatest possible expansion and productivity of this industry. 
On the other hand, we have also claimed that the worker in the 
anthracite mines has certain fundamental rights which all students 
of industry, fair-minded men, and lovers of humanity, fully concede 
and sanction. The more important of these arc (1) the right to a 
living wage, (2) the right to collective action or to collective bargain- 
ing with employers through the leaders of their organizations or 
representatives of their own choosing, and (3) the right to an eight- 
hour workday. This has been our basic argument throughout the 
presentation of the case to the commission. 

These principles were sanctioned by the enlightened opinion of 
the civilized world at the Paris peace conference in the labor pro- 
vision of the covenant of the League of Nations, and since that time 
they have been favorably received by economists, men of affairs, the 
churches without regard to denomination, industrial conferences. 
and wage boards in this country. As a matter of fact they have been 

37 



38 ANTHKACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

given a practical acceptance and application in the awards of the two 
most important adjustment agencies recently appointed by you — the 
United States Bituminous Coal Commission and the United States 
Railway Labor Board — and in the reports of the Federal Electric 
E ail ways Commission. 

All these facts were presented by us to the commissioners exhaus- 
tively and with great care. It is with regret that we have to go on 
record as formally stating to you that the majority report does not 
face these fundamental principles squarely and does not measure up 
to the opportunity for the industrial statesmanship which the occa- 
sion demanded. It obviously evades and fails to recognize these 
fundamental principles, is temporizing in its point of view, and with- 
out explanation seeks grounds of evident expediency. 

THE QUESTION OF WAGES. 

The request for increased rates of compensation which we pre- 
sented to the commission was as follows : 

1. Standardization of rates of pay for the same work throughout the field. 

2. The same increases in rates of pay as were granted to soft-coal mine 
workers by the President's Bituminous Coal Commission by its award of 
March 19, 1920. This demand involves the following increases : 

A. The establishment for all adult day workers who are now receiving less 
than $5 a day a rate of $6 per clay. 

B. An increase of $1 per day to all adult day workers who are now being 
paid $5 or more than $5 a day. 

C. Workers paid on a monthly basis to receive an increase proportionate to 
their rate per day computed on the basis of the number of days worked per month. 

D. Boys who are now receiving less than men's wages to be advanced 53 
cents per day. 

E. Thirty-one per cent increase on all contract rates. 

The practical application of these requests would have consisted 
in applying the same increases in the rates of pay to anthracite mine 
workers doing similar work, as were granted to the soft coal mine 
workers by your former Bituminous Coal Commission, with the 
stipulation that the minimum wage paid in the anthracite mines to 
outside labor should be the same as established in the bituminous 
mines, or $6 a day. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF A LIVING WAGE. 

Our general point of view and our contention was that the wages 
of the anthracite mine workers should be standardized and estab- 
lished on the same levels as those of the workers in the bituminous 
mines. In addition to this argument, we specifically urged that the 
lowest paid anthracite worker was entitled to a living wage, or rates 
of pay sufficient to maintain himself and his family, according to an 
American standard of living, .on a basis of health, decency, and 
reasonable comfort. 

In asking for a minimum scale of $6 per da} 7 , we did so with the 
realization that this was the absolute minimum amount upon which 
an adult man could support himself and his family in decency and 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 39 

health. To receive a lesser wage would mean either (1) to dis- 
courage marriage, or (2) to make necessary the labor of wives and 
young children or (3) to bring about a steady* deterioration of the 
health and moral qualities of the families affected. 

The first of these three alternatives — the discouragement of mar- 
riage — we held was socially and personally undesirable. 

The second — the employment of children and wives outside the 
home — means, in most cases, the destruction of the home, and is an 
evil which all high-minded people have been fighting for many years. 

The third alternative — a deterioration of the health and moral 
qualities of the families through lack of food, improper housing, 
etc. — we pointed out, would mean, of course, destruction of all hopes 
and aspirations for the future of society. 

With these considerations in mind, we pointed out to the commis- 
sion that the anthracite mine workers and all American wage earn- 
ers have a fundamental economic right to at least a living wage, or 
an American standard of living. Without this we showed that there 
could not be intelligent and sound citizenship and that the future 
was without hope to the mine worker. Failure to realize this right, 
we showed, breeds revolutionary agitation, and prevents our self- 
governing Republic from being what it should be. We showed fur- 
ther that the present wages of anthracite workmen were not sufficient 
to maintain an unimpaired family life, and free the children from the 
necessity of seeking employment in hosiery and silk mills or the 
shirt factories in order to supplement the inadequate earnings of 
their father in the mines. We contended that our wages should be 
sufficient to guarantee that our children should be well nourished 
and educated, and that the children of the alien worker should have 
the Americanizing influence of the public schools. 

As concrete evidence of the inadequacy of existing wages and of 
the lack of a living wage, we submitted the results of our own investi- 
gations in the anthracite field and the results of budgetary studies 
which have been the outcome of research and investigation by im- 
partial students, or by organizations of recognized, authoritative 
standing, either governmental or private. These budgets showed that 
average annual earnings of at least $2,242 were necessary to maintain 
a miner's family on a basis of health and decency, and average earn- 
ings of at least $1,772 were necessary to maintain even a mere sub- 
sistence standard, or one covering physical needs of food, clothing, 
and shelter alone. On the basis of a minimum of $6 a day to the 
unskilled worker, his annual earnings, according to the maximum 
number of days the collieries would run, as estimated by the operators 
themselves, would be approximately only $1,600, or several hundred 
dollars less than necessary to a subsistence standard of living, and 
$800 less, approximately, than necessary to maintain an American 
standard, or one of health, decency, and reasonable comfort. We 
felt, therefore, that our wage requests were extremely reasonable and 



40 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

conservative, and although less than they should have been, that they 
would result at least in placing the lowest-paid worker and his 
family on a subsistence level, and would approximate for the contract 
miner an American standard of living. 

After the close of the public presentation of evidence to the com- 
mission the chairman retained as his expert adviser one of the most 
eminent and unbiased students of the labor problem both here' and 
abroad, Prof. M. B. Hammond, of Ohio State University. This 
economist, after carefully analyzing all the evidence placed before 
the commission, made a report to the chairman in which he recom- 
mended the acceptance of the living-wage principle as the basis for 
the commission's report, and stated, after a study of the cost of liv- 
ing in the anthracite region, that rates of pay should be so fixed as to 
enable the lowest-paid anthracite worker, the outside laborer, to earn 
a living wage of at least $1,600 annually, and that for other workers 
wage differentials above this minimum as a basis should be estab- 
lished. The basic contentions of the anthracite mine workers were, 
therefore, approved and sanctioned by this eminent economist. His 
conclusions were formally accepted by me during the deliberations of 
the commission. 

THE WAGE AWARD OF THE MAJORITY REPORT. 

The majority report, however, does not accept the principle of the 
living wage, or of an American standard of living, as the basis of 
its award. It also failed to accept the conclusions or recommenda- 
tions of Dr. Hammond, the disinterested economist, retained as an 
adviser by the chairman. Instead, it based its findings as to rates 
of pay upon the principle of the increased cost of living. In doing 
this, moreover, it does not apply the increase in the cost of living 
since our last wage adjustment in November, 1918, but goes back to 
1902, the time of the establishment of the original Anthracite Coal 
Strike Commission. 

During the proceedings of the commission we held that, as a basis 
of wage adjustment, the principle of the increase in living costs 
should not be accepted, for the reason that it was an emergency 
measure, temporarily sanctioned by labor for the period of the war, 
for the reason that labor did not wish to profit from the war emer- 
gency, but merely to maintain the wage and living standards prior 
to the outbreak of hostilities. The acceptance of this principle by 
the commission, to our minds, means the perpetuation of deplorable 
and unacceptable pre-war rates of pay and standards of living. In- 
adequacies in the pre-war purchasing power of the rates of compen- 
sation of the earnings of anthracite workers are continued. The use 
of this principle prevents the rectification of former injustices and 
affords no basis of hope of progress or of greater economic welfare 
for the future. The money terms of rates of pay are changed. In 
real purchasing power, however, they are still insufficient to maintain 
an American standard of living. The inadequate earnings of the 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 41 

heads of the families in the mines must be supplemented by the 
work of their wives or by the taking of boarders and lodgers into the 
home, and the children are prevented from pursuing their education 
in the schools. 

Finally, if the majority report accepts this principle, it should 
have applied it justly and properly. The increase in the cost of 
living since our last wage adjustment has amounted to 27 per cent. 
This is shown by official statistics and by the report of Prof. Ham- 
mond. Instead of applying the principle to this period, however, 
the commission, without justification, goes back of November, 1918, 
the time of our last wage adjustment, even back of the war period 
itself, which no other wage-adjustment agency during or since the 
war has done, and applies the principle to the year 1902 as a begin- 
ning and, computing from that date, finds that. wage rates of anthra- 
cite workers are now only IT per cent behind increased living costs. 
"We are thus actually deprived of at least 10 per cent of the rates 
of pay which we already had before the majority award was made. 
In accepting the principle of the increased cost of living as a basis 
for its wage findings, the majority report should have proceeded 
upon Xovember, 1918, as a basis and granted to us a 27 per cent 
increase in rates of compensation and not a 17 per cent increase. 

We feel that our demands were extraordinarily modest. In the 
case of the tonnage workers the request was for an increase of 31 
per cent. This was very much less than the increase in the cost of 
living. Thus between 1911 and 1920 the anthracite contract miner 
had received an increase of only 49.8 per cent, whereas the cost of 
living, according to official statistics, had been at least 104 per cent. 
Thus merely to maintain the contract miner's wages at their pre- 
war purchasing power would require an increase of 36 per cent 
over present rates. Surely the miners were justified in expecting 
substantially this amount and in expecting that they would not be 
asked to sacrifice indefinitely their old standards of living and see 
their families worse off than they were in 1914. The chairman of 
the commission, however, in agreement with the operators' repre- 
sentative, offers less than 17 per cent. 

In the case of the great body of low-paid laborers and other time 
workers the situation is even worse. The mine workers submitted 
a series of exhibits regarding the cost of maintaining a family at a 
level of health and decency. These exhibits contained the results of 
studies made by scientific students and official agencies of unques- 
tioned impartiality and ability. These showed conclusively that at 
prices now prevailing no ordinary family could be supported at a 
level of health and simple decency on less than approximately $2,242 
per year. Still acting in a highly conservative spirit, and conceding 
every possible objection, the mine workers reduced their request to a 
minimum of $6 per day. Even if anthracite coal mining were a 
300-day industry, and assuming the impossible condition that the 



42 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION". 

average worker lost no time from duty, this would mean only $1,800 
a year. 

In practice, of course, anthracite mining offers no such oppor- 
tunity. Even the operators claim only 273 days of operation in 1919, 
and no proof was submitted in substantiation of this claim. Thus, 
allowing for the ordinary vicissitudes of sickness, accident, and lack 
of work, the average anthracite worker could certainly not expect 
more than 260 clays of work a year. At $6 per day this would mean 
an annual income of only $1,560. It is questionable whether any 
man, at present prices, can support a family even in the most modest 
fashion on such a sum. Yet what do the chairman of the commis- 
sion and the operators' representative offer? They offer $4.20 per 
day for eight hours of work, which for a full year of 273 da}^s would 
amount to only $1,147 per year. Surely the mine workers have a 
right to feel that the evidence has been disregarded. Even though 
no evidence had been offered, common knowledge would rebel at the 
offer of $4.20 per day as a living wage in an industry which has all 
the vicissitudes and uncertainties of the anthracite industry. 

THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY. 

The wage feature of the majority report threatens the complete 
abrogation of the eight-hour provision of the 1916 agreement. That 
this is accomplished by indirection renders the result no less certain 
and even more vicious. "What it does do is to fix hourly rates which 
will produce a minimum of approximately $1,400 provided the em- 
ployees work the same hours as they did in 1919. This means, for 
outside employees, a 9J and 10-hour day, as such hours were custom- 
ary in the year 1919. This is equivalent to penalizing the employees 
for their patriotic services during the war and during the uncertain 
days following the armistice. The Strike Commission of 1902 had 
fixed nine hours per day for practically all time workers. In the 
agreement of 1916 the working day was further reduced to eight hours, 
the agreement providing that " Section 1. b. The working day estab- 
lished by the Anthracite Strike Commission shall be changed from 
nine hours to eight hours. * * *" 

The supplemental agreement of May, 1917, made no change in the 
working day. But by that time the Great War was on. Under the 
pressure of the moment the mine workers, as did the workers in 
other trades, surrendered many of their hard-won privileges that 
the war might be won. They gave up their holidays, they worked 
on Sundays, they worked overtime, they did the work not only of 
themselves but of their fellow workers who left to enter the fighting 
forces. 

- But in thus surrendering their rights and privileges that the 
country might be served in a time of grave emergency they had 
no thought that the surrender would be permanent, and surely no 
honest man could expect that this should be the case. 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 43 

Thus the miners, when they came into the present arbitration, 
believed that the eight -hour day was now an established feature of 
the industry. And if solemn agreements are not to be regarded as 
scraps of paper they had a right to this belief. The thought never 
even occurred to them that this commission might seek to violate the- 
old agreements. 

It is absolutely beside the point to argue that the extension of hours 
was necessitated by the fact that the eight-hour day is impracticable 
for all outside workers in the anthracite mines. Even if this were so, 
it would be entirely without the jurisdiction of the chairman and 
the operators' representative on this commission to abrogate a con- 
tractual agreement not submitted to them for arbitration. 

As a matter of fact, of course, the practicability of the eight-hour 
day was acknowledged by its incorporation in the agreement of 1916. 
Moreover, its entire practicability is attested by the fact that many 
mines are now running on a flat eight-hour day for both inside and 
outside workers. That certain other mines are operating longer hours 
is due simply to insufficient equipment. If a mine has only two 
breakers where it should have three, of course it can not put through 
its breakers in eight hours the coal which the inside workers produce 
in eight hours. The remedy is to restore prewar conditions or build 
another breaker, not to make the employes of the breakers work over- 
time and then say it is necessary. 

Xor is there the slightest weight to the argument which may pos- 
sibly be made that the eight-hour day provided for in the 1916 agree- 
ment meant " basic " and not an " actual " eight-hour da}^ and that 
the employees themselves expected longer hours. The idea of a 
" basic eight-hour day " is meaningless unless extra pay is given for 
overtime work, and no such extra payment is made in the anthracite 
industry. When the mine workers were struggling for the eight- 
hour day over a period of years and finally obtained it in 1916, they 
were governed by the desire to have the working day actually reduced 
to eight hours. To read another idea into the minds of the workers 
is absolutely gratuitous. Their sincerity is proven by the fact that 
they asked for overtime at the rate of time and a half. They did so 
in the knowledge that such extra payment would mean the elimina- 
tion of overtime, for the result would be to make it financially un- 
profitable for the operators to work overtime. This is precisely what 
happened on the railroads. At present the fact that overtime is not 
paid for at a higher rate makes it financially more profitable for cer- 
tain operators to work long hours than to install sufficient equipment 
or to take on more men. 

In view of all of these facts, it is amazing that the chairman and 
the representatives of the operators on this commission should now 
say to certain classes of the miners : 

We have come to the conclusion that approximately $1,400 per year is the 
absolute minimum amount upon which you can maintain yourself ami family; 
we believe, however, that the hourly rates should be so low that you will be 



44 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

required always to work the same long hours you have been working under the 
pressure of the war ; and, finally, we brush aside existing agreements, feeling 
quite sure that we know better than you do what is good' for you and for the 

industry. 

The commission denies the request for time and a half payment 
for overtime. Their only stated reason for doing this is that neither 
operators nor miners desire to abolish the present practice. This is 
a complete and apparently willful misunderstanding of the mine 
workers' position. What we do want is the actual eight-hour day. 
with a sufficiently high hourly wage to permit of the earning of a 
fair living during the course of the year. If wages are kept below 
this level, of course, the average man will want overtime work. He 
must have it in order to live. But this is the very condition the mine 
workers are striving to change, and which it was the duty of this 
commission to change. 

RECOGNITION OF THE UNION. 

The provisions of the majority report as to union recognition are 
entirely unsatisfactory, and add to the almost insuperable difficul- 
ties which the United Mine Workers of America have previously 
experienced in attempting to maintain stability and cooperation 
in the anthracite area. Our attitude as to this point can be no bet- 
ter expressed than in the closing argument of Mr. Philip Murray, 
vice president of the United Mine Workers of America, before the 
commission. I shall quote it as. exemplifying our point of view on 
this most important phase of industrial relations in the anthracite 
mining areas. 

There can be no real industrial peace or accelerated production in the an- 
thracite industry until the United Mine Workers of America are given a full 
and complete recognition of their union. This is no threat. It is merely the 
statement of a fact. It can not have, nor does it claim it can have, the in- 
fluence over the great body of mine workers which it should have until the 
operators accord it complete recognition. 

Eighteen years ago the Anthracite Strike Commission stated that it would 
have granted recognition to the United Mine Workers had it been within the 
scope of its jurisdiction. The operators refused to submit tbe question to arbi- 
tration. The 1902 commission then proceeded to state what sbould be the 
proper grounds of union organization and activity and intimated and practi- 
cally promised that under these conditions the operators should recognize th^ 
union. This commission said : 

"An independent and autonomous organization of the anthracite mine 
workers of Pennsylvania, however affiliated, in which the objectionable features 
above alluded to should be absent (majority vote instead of* a two-thirds vote 
on the question of a strike), would deserve the recommendation of this com- 
mission; and were it within the scope of its jurisdiction, the said fourth 
demand of the statement of claim for collective bargaining and a trade agree- 
ment might then be reasonably granted. * * * " 

Experience shows that the more full the recognition given to a trades-union 
the more businesslike and responsible it becomes. Through dealing with busi- 
ness men in business matters, its more intelligent, conservative, and responsible 
members come to the front and gain control and direction of its affairs. If the 
energy of the employer is directed to discouragement and repression of the 



ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 45 

union he need not be surprised if the more radically inclined members are the 
ones most frequently heard. * * *. 

The operators, however, have refused such recognition. Instead of taking 
the suggestion of the 1902 commission as it was intended, they twisted it as an 
argument against us. They have done everything possible to make the union 
unattractive and then ask us why is the union not more attractive to the 
workers. They have held the union responsible for all contracts, and yet will 
not concede that the union is of any advantage to the workers. 

For IS years under these unfair and almost intolerable conditions, at great 
financial loss, we have maintained industrial peace and continuity of produc- 
tion. Were it not for the United Mine Workers of America there would be a 
strike in the anthracite mines at the present time. 

The mine workers wish union recognition. It has been mainly prevented 
by the influence of sinister and absentee financial interests who control the 
anthracite industry. A great many local operators and managers would not 
oppose it. * * * 

I believe that the commission will give to these very important facts 
their most careful consideration and that in view of the stabilizing influences 
of the United Mine Workers of America in the general uplift of the industry, 
that the commission will mete out to the members of the United Mine Workers 
of America in the anthracite region that full measure of recognition which 
we believe they are so justly entitled to. 

We think the time has come when we should enter into our reward. We 
feel confident that the commission will see the injustice of the operators and 
completely grant our demands for union recognition. 

The following statement was submitted by me as an alternative to 
the provision of the majority report : 

The commission believes that the more full and complete recognition is given 
to a trade-union, the more responsible and effective it becomes. The history of 
collective bargaining in the anthracite field during the past 18 years, or, since 
the award of the Anthracite Strike Commission of 1902, clearly shows that the 
United Mine Workers of America deserve the most complete recognition pos- 
sible and the most effective cooperation on the part of the anthracite operators 
in maintaining continuity of work and maximum production. The commission, 
therefore, approves the request for recognition of the United Mine Workers of 
America as party to the agreement in adjusting the differences between the 
operators and the miners in all the contractual relations between the parties. 

The form of contract entered into as provided in this award shall be between 
(1) districts 1, 7, and 9 of the United Mine Workers of America, as represented 
by the presidents of the three districts; (2) the general organization of the 
United Mine Workers of America, as represented by the international president ; 
and (3) the anthracite operators. The general organization of the United 
Mine Workers of America, as represented by the international president, to- 
gether with the district presidents, shall be responsible for the fulfillment of all 
contracts. 

The request for the compulsory closed-shop agreement with a " check off " 
provision is denied. If the employees of any colliery and the management, 
however, may wish to establish the closed shop and the " check off," by 
mutual agreement, they may do so under this award, or, if any employee 
voluntarily executes an order to have his organization dues deducted from 
his earnings, the management of the colliery where he is employed shall make 
such deductions and turn over the amount so deducted to the duly accredited 
representative of the organization specified. 

Nothing in this award shall in any degree interfere with or annul the 
provisions of the award of the Anthracite Strike Commission of 1902, in which 
the rights and privileges of nonunion men were stated and protected. 



46 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

In the actual operation of the official recognition of the United Mine Workers 
of America, as granted in this award for the purpose of adjusting grievances 
and strengthening collective bargaining, where nonunion employees have griev- 
ances, or where for any reason the grievance or mine committee fails to give 
such grievances consideration satisfactory to the employee, his right to appeal 
from the decision of the foreman or the grievance or the mine committee to 
the board of conciliation shall be inviolate. 

INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS OR SUBCONTRACTING. 

We have endeavored to point out to the commission the abuses 
practiced where contracts of this character are let. The majority 
report has recognized this fact, but instead of limiting the oppor- 
tunity for such abuses to continue, has. by the recognition of the 
principle, enlarged upon the opportunity for abuses. The abuses of 
the system lie in the letting of contracts under conditions where it is 
entirely unnecessary either because of the physical conditions or for 
the promotion of greater safety and where the work could be done 
under the usual s} 7 stem of mining as established at the colliery. It 
may be that under certain special local conditions it would be best 
to subcontract certain pieces of work, due to the abnormal conditions 
surrounding it, but that can be well taken care of by the parties to 
the general contract, if so provided. But surely the principle of col- 
lective bargaining must necessarily be destroyed if, in addition to the 
collective bargain which we are now engaged in making, individual 
bargains such as subcontracts involve can be made, and which must 
necessarily supersede the general one. Other abuses of the system 
may be summarized as follows : The letting of subcontracts to favor- 
ites, the favoring of contractors in the distribution of cars, the 
alleged division of profits between bosses and contractors, and the 
general disfavor with which the system is looked upon. 

The provision which I proposed in lieu of that of the majority 
report was as follows : 

The right of contract shall not be denied or abridged, but the commission 
declares in favor of collective bargaining as a general principle and against indi- 
vidual contracts that tend to supersede or substitute for the Dasic award or 
agreement. 

The commission recognizes the abuses that may arise by the subcontracting 
system ; therefore awards against such as a principle, or general practice. The 
evidence submitted by both operators and miners to this commission discloses 
the necessity in isolated cases to subcontract particular work; therefore when 
such necessity arises subcontracting may be permitted subject to complaint or 
review as are other grievances arising under the award or contract. 

THE ATTITUDE OF THE OPERATORS. 

There is only one further point which we would bring to your con- 
sideration. During the negotiations preceding the appointment of 
the present commission, the Secretan T of Labor, in his official ca- 
pacity as a conciliator, wdiich had been properly invoked, made a pro- 
posal for settlement, the acceptance of which was recommended to 
the anthracite mine works bv the general officers of the United Mine 






ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 47 

Workers of America. These officers thought growing unrest would 
be allayed and essential production best maintained by reaching an 
agreement at that time. A convention of the anthracite mine workers 
was called, and after consideration and debate the representatives of 
the Avorkers decided to reject the Secretary of Labor's proposal and 
to ask you to appoint a commission to determine the matters in dis- 
pute. 

Throughout the proceedings of this commission the anthracite 
operators have attempted to evade a decision upon the* basis of the 
facts and principles involved, and to secure a settlement according 
to the terms of the Secretary of Labor's mediatory proposals. Since 
the appointment of the commission we have insisted upon a judicial 
determination of the matters in dispute according to the evidence 
submitted. This has been the wish of the anthracite mine workers. 
You can see at once that the Secretary of Labor did not pretend 
to act upon the case in a judicial capacity when it was brought to 
him. He merely endeavored, as a mediator, to make a conciliatory 
proposal upon which both sides might agree. The representatives 
of the operators, however, from the beginning of the work of the 
commission have constantly attempted to defeat the ends of justice 
and judicial process, and to evade facts damaging to their conten- 
tions, by making the Secretary of Labor's proposal appear in a way 
in which it was never intended to be used. Their entire attitude has 
been destructive. They have put forward no facts or constructive 
suggestions which might have been of assistance to the commission, 
but have restricted their presentation to a destructive criticism of the 
anthracite workers' exhibits or to measures similar to the improper 
use of the Secretary of Labor's mediatory proposal. 

OTHER DEMANDS. 

It is not our purpose to burden you unnecessarily with arguments 
or criticisms of the findings of the majority report relative to purely 
technical points as to mining operations or local working conditions. 
Our objections to the findings of the majority report are fully cov- 
ered in the records. We are interested mainly in fundamentals — 
the right to a living wage, to an eight-hour workday, and to union 
recognition. These are the vital principles which we wish to be rec- 
ognized and affirmed, and to deny which, we feel, is to deny real 
Americanism and its blessings and opportunities to anthracite wage 
earners. 

DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED. 

In order that you may have our point of view in brief form, how- 
ever, and may have quickly accessible the facts and principles upon 
which we have based our case before the commission, Ave are sub- 
mitting herewith and making an integral part of this report the fol- 
lowing documents : 

1. Copy of the opening and closing statements of Mr. Philip 
Murray, vice president of the United Mine Workers of America, in 



48 ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION. 

charge of the presentation to the commission of the case of the an- 
thracite mine workers. 

This document we have designated as Appendix A. 

2. Copies of — 

(a) Report to the chairman by Prof. M. B. Hammond, of Ohio 
State University, economic expert and adviser to the chairman. 

(h) The acceptance of Prof. M. B. Hammond's recommendations 
lay the mine workers. 

(c) Prof. M. B. Hammond's rejoinder to the operators. 

These documents we have designated as -Appendix B. 

3. A series of printed monographs of the following titles : 
(a) Combination in the anthracite industry. 

(h) Profits of anthracite operators. 

(c) Operating and financial performance of anthracite railroads. 

(d) The relations between wages and production, costs, prices, and 
profits in the anthracite mining industry. 

These documents were originally prepared for presentation to the 
commission. When we began to submit them the operators objected. 
We insisted upon their submission because the public was a party to 
the case and should have all the facts. The operators claimed that 
the public was not a party. The commission finally decided to refuse 
to receive the exhibits because it had no direct jurisdiction over 
anthracite coal prices and profits. Vital facts bearing upon the 
public interest in the case were thus excluded. 

We wish you to know, and through you the public, that the United 
Mine Workers do not wish to exploit the public. We are, therefore, 
transmitting these documents for your consideration and request 
that they be published as a part of my report as a member of this 
commission, so that the facts they contain may be available to. the 
public. They are based on the records of the Supreme Court and 
other authoritative official agencies. We have designated these docu- 
ments as Exhibit C. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, we wish to say, as we did in the 
beginning, that the majority report shall have the full, practical 
acceptances of the officers of the United Mine Workers of America, 
and we shall devote ourselves to its application, as we obligated 
ourselves to do when we submitted our cause to this commission. 
The fundamental principles, however, for which we have contended, 
and which the majority report denies, shall continue to have our 
undiminished support. We have considered it our duty to the 
anthracite-mine workers and to the public to bring to your atten- 
tion and to make a formal record of what we consider the inequalities 
and injustices and the fundamental omissions of the majority report. 
Respectfully, ^ j Ferrt 

The President, 

The White House. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 292 891 5 



